Wright writes.....

[Lecorbusier]

14 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I have listed the conversions I have done to RTR diesels on here before so here goes again

 

Mainline 03 to class 04

Lima 09 to class 12

Lima 09 and H/D 08 to class 13

Wrenn class 20 to a class 20 with headcode boxes

Hornby class 29/21 to Class 21 (GE version)

Hornby class 29/21 to Class 21 (GNSR version)

Hornby class 29/21 to Class 29 (D6123 disc headcode)

Hornby class 29/21 to Class 29 (4 fig heacode)

Hornby class 29 to Class 22 (pilot batch)

Hornby class 29 to Class 22 (disc headcode)

Hornby class 29 to Class 22 (four fig heacde boxes rebuilt from discheadcode)

Hornby class 29 to Class 22 (built with four fig headcode)

Hornby class 29/21 to Warship A1A-A1A

Hornby class 25 to Class 24 (pilot batch)

Hornby class 25 to Class 24 (production batch)

Hornby class 25 to Class 24 (4 fig headcode ScR tablet recess)

Hornby class 25 to Class 24 (4 fig headcode LMR)

Hornby class 25 to class 25/0

Hornby class 25 to class 25/1 non boiler

Hornby class 25 to class 25/2 late body with boiler

Hornby class 25 to Class 25/3

Hornby class 25 to Class 25/3 (ScR tablet recess)

Tri-ang class 30 to Class 30 (toffee apple)

Tri-ang class 30 to Class 30 (disc headcode)

Tri-ang class 30 to Class 30 (D5835 additional grille 2000hp)

Airfix class 31 to class 31 (disc headcode)

Lima class 33 to class 33/1 (bagpipe)

Lima class 33 to class 33/2 (slim Jim)

Lima class 33 to class 26 (GNR version)

Lima class 33 to class 26 (ScR version)

Lima class 33 to class 27 (ScR version tablet recess)

Lima class 33 to class 27 ( NER version no boiler)

Lima class 33 to class 27 ( LMR version)

Tri-ang class 35 to early class 35 (D7001)

Tri-ang class 37 to Class 37 split heacode

Tri-ang class 37 to class 23

Tri-ang class 37 to Class 40 (disc headcode)

Tri-ang class 37 to Class 40 (split headcode)

Tri-ang class 37 to Class 40 (central headcode)

Vi Trains class 37 to Class 37 split headcode

Vi Trains class 37, backdated

Lima class 37 backdated

Jouef Class 40 slimmed

Jouef Class 40 slimmed split headcode

Mainline Warship, disc headcode

Lima Warship to D870 Zulu Roof mounteed horn box.

Mainline class 45 to class 44

Mainline class 45 to class 44 D9

Mainline class 45 to class 44 D10

Mainline class 45 to class 45 split headcode and front doors

Mainline class 45 to class 45 split headcode

Mainline class 45 to class 46 one piece central headcode box

Hornby class 47 to class 48

Hornby class 47 to early class 47 (3 part fixed radiator grille)

Hornby class 47 to later class 47 (2 part grille open position)

Lima class 47 to early class 47 (3 part fixed radiator grille)

Lima class 47 to early class 47 (3 part fixed vertical radiator grille, D1529)

Lima class 47 to later class 47 (2 part grille open position)

Heljan class 47 to later class 47 (2 part grille open position)

Vi trains  class 47 to early class 47 (3 part fixed radiator grille)

Vi Trains class 47 to later class 47 (2 part grille open position)

Lima Deltic, stretched to full length

Lima Deltic to DP2

 

Motorised Airfix/Dapol 04s and done all three tram versions

Motorised GBL class 47

Motorised GBL class 55

 

That list does not include the scratchbuilt locos I have done, in plastic.

 

Less  variety ? Tell my craft knife.

 

Edit , forgot Lima class 40 to class 23.

 

There you go .... definitely  shows I know nothing ... but then I did admit as much 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Lecorbusier

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Willie Whizz said:

You might very well think that, but actually I've found it extraordinarily difficult to design a satisfactory track plan with "typical" GC-style features (and with a station) that will fit into anything smaller than a standard garage (which is the kind of space I don't have available, only a respectable-sized spare bedroom).  Something to do with the way the island platform pushes-out all the pointwork for crossovers and passing loops to the very extremities of the available space (not to mention access to a goods yard), leaving you, at best, only able to have train-set curves and train-set length trains.  Taking the points "round the corner" doesn't look quite right either.  And modelling an actual track plan of a real station, as so often advocated, seems barely feasible in anything significantly less than a Tony-style big shed.

 

The GC's London Extension trains may have been just about the right size to model with 'fewer compromises', but I don't think that applies to the stations!

 

Good Afternoon WW,

 

Two points if I may,

 

I wouldn't model a station, Horrible things, they obscure all the interesting bits. For example, I like to see my valve gear doing valve gear stuff, not obscured by a great slab of nothing. Think out of the box, say no to stations, and hello to freedom.

 

The original post and one prior to that, was in reference to the shear number of passenger trains on the ECML which prevents Steve from building the express trains as they were. With over one hundred to chose from in each direction, you can see his point. Unfortunately, this means that they will be 'generic' to a certain extent, so that multiple trains can be represented by a limited amount of stock. I wouldn't be able to except that, not wanting to put in the work with nothing to show in terms of recreating a real train and at a particular date and time. There is little to choose in terms of who has the longer trains, ECML or GCLE.

 

Fortunately for me, I am not modelling the ECML, by choosing the London extension, I have only ten expresses to chose from in each direction, against the hundred plus of the bigger brother.  It is relatively easy to nail down a representative sample and do so in such detail that many of the carriages as well as the locomotives have the correct numbers. The most typical GC like features for me are the trains, they are unique and I've got to know them like the back of my hand. The worst kind of GC layout, would be one with all the typical cliches, yet I wouldn't recognize a single thing running on it, I've seen that layout! I think that the London extension is so distinctively different in it's own right, that you could pick a location in the middle of nowhere and identify it as such, without the need for the more 'typical clutter'.

[Atso]

18 minutes ago, Headstock said:

The original post and one prior to that, was in reference to the shear number of passenger trains on the ECML which prevents Steve from building the express trains as they were. With over one hundred to chose from in each direction, you can see his point. Unfortunately, this means that they will be 'generic' to a certain extent, so that multiple trains can be represented by a limited amount of stock. I wouldn't be able to except that, not wanting to put in the work with nothing to show in terms of recreating a real train and at a particular date and time. There is little to choose in terms of who has the longer trains, ECML or GCLE.

 

Hi Andrew,

 

While I cannot model too many accurate formations (The Flying Scotsman, Queen of Scots and Silver Jubilee being the exceptions), I will be able to vary the other express formations that will appear by the use of kickback sidings and a couple of free loops for shunting bits around. I'm going to model two or three 'core' catering sections and have a few variations of stock that can be added to the front and rear of these to represent other expresses. In theory the track plan allows for a maximum of fourteen carriage expresses to be run and hopefully, while not 100% accurate, they will give the impression of being different from each other and (more or less) representative of what ran. Admittedly this means more mucking about in the fiddle yard, but I've always been as interested in 'operation' as I have been in running trains. The idea (hope) is that Hadley Wood will operate an extensive sequence in which nothing appears in exactly the same way twice - even if that is simply a change in motive power between appearances.

 

The outer suburban, Hatfield/Hitching (and their associated branch workings) and Cambridge workings on the other hand will be modelled as accurately as possible - admittedly only a select 'few' services though.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Atso

[Headstock]

35 minutes ago, Atso said:

 

Hi Andrew,

 

While I cannot model too many accurate formations (The Flying Scotsman, Queen of Scots and Silver Jubilee being the exceptions), I will be able to vary the other express formations that will appear by the use of kickback sidings and a couple of free loops for shunting bits around. I'm going to model two or three 'core' catering sections and have a few variations of stock that can be added to the front and rear of these to represent other expresses. In theory the track plan allows for a maximum of fourteen carriage expresses to be run and hopefully, while not 100% accurate, they will give the impression of being different from each other and (more or less) representative of what ran. Admittedly this means more mucking about in the fiddle yard, but I've always been as interested in 'operation' as I have been in running trains. The idea (hope) is that Hadley Wood will operate an extensive sequence in which nothing appears in exactly the same way twice - even if that is simply a change in motive power between appearances.

 

The outer suburban, Hatfield/Hitching (and their associated branch workings) and Cambridge workings on the other hand will be modelled as accurately as possible - admittedly only a select 'few' services though.

 

Not a criticism Steve, just that I've got a far easier job, except for the thirty coal trains.

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, glo41f said:

 Tony wrote:-

" Earlier split chassis ones are falling apart in epidemic proportions, and the more recent ones display split gears or crumbling gear towers. Not good. "

 

I wonder if this is all down to trying to get to the cheapest option as far as the manufacturer is concerned.  We seem to want everything down to a price these days. I am also (vaguely) interested in the European model scene where these problems do not seem to exist. A lot of the assembly and production work is in house but the results are by British standards way too expensive to be attractive. Would the model enthusiast of today pay £350 plus for a well engineered model loco which will last a lifetime (perhaps more than one). You will all be the judge of that.  For my part I would always try and make something to the best of my ability converting or adapting as required. This takes time an increasingly precious thing. As a 7mm type, we are getting an astonishing amount of trade support these days which will no doubt see the issues mentioned by Tony further down the road. (Heljan have already had a gear drive problem). So do we grin and bear it or be prepared to demand better quality at a higher price? (Here is one I made earlier!)

 

Martin Long

Thanks Martin,

 

Two rather nice B17s there.................

 

I learned recently that the gear-splitting problem can be attributed to the reuse of plastics (for obvious cost-saving reasons). Virgin (thus pure) plastic is semi-opaque white, but many gears seem to be installed now which are opaque, usually black; meaning they're liable to have impurities in them. 

 

It's the same case with mazak castings, where reuse of material has introduced impurities.

 

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

Another way of telling if you have reused plastic is the smell, if it has a bitter dry smell, it has reground plastic.

 

manna

[Jesse Sim]

As they say, 

 

A wagon a day, keeps the Wright at bay. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

20 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

You might very well think that, but actually I've found it extraordinarily difficult to design a satisfactory track plan with "typical" GC-style features (and with a station) that will fit into anything smaller than a standard garage (which is the kind of space I don't have available, only a respectable-sized spare bedroom).  Something to do with the way the island platform pushes-out all the pointwork for crossovers and passing loops to the very extremities of the available space (not to mention access to a goods yard), leaving you, at best, only able to have train-set curves and train-set length trains.  Taking the points "round the corner" doesn't look quite right either.  And modelling an actual track plan of a real station, as so often advocated, seems barely feasible in anything significantly less than a Tony-style big shed.

 

The GC's London Extension trains may have been just about the right size to model with 'fewer compromises', but I don't think that applies to the stations!

A 'Tony-style big shed'? 

 

Have you just introduced a new category in model railway sites, Willie? 

 

What I have to say next might ruffle a few feathers (nothing new there then?). 

 

As is well known, my preference has always been to model a prototype location. Since part of that preference is for it to be an ECML location, then the (model) site has to be big. Now 'big' is a relative term. Compared to Retford and Carlisle, Little Bytham is a tiny site in comparison, but it's 'big' compared to the majority of spaces available to the majority of modellers. 

 

 

This is Ian Wilson's 'scale' rendition of BR's 1948 plan of Little Bytham (the MR/M&GNR bit to the right is very compressed). In order to give an 'accurate' representation of this main line site in 4mm scale, the 'footprint' needed is 32' x 12'. 

 

 

This is Ian Wilson's interpretive track plan for the making of the model (slight alterations to various scenic/trackwork bits and pieces have been made in the light of progress). 

 

Without access to this amount of space, I would not have contemplated building (as part of a team) Little Bytham, or probably any other ECML location (other than Hadley Wood?). Why not? Far too many compromises would have necessary for me to accept, including (a particular pet hate!) visible too tight right-angle curves at the ends of a scenic continuous-run section going on/off stage. Nothing (in my opinion) is more ruinous to 'reality' than such features, especially if the overall modelling standard is high.  To have 'out of sight' curves on LB in, say, 25' would have meant ridiculous foreshortening. Foreshortening which would have prevented me from running prototype-length trains like this...................

 

 

This express is 13 cars-long, but it doesn't 'fill' the available space. Note how, in the distance, the right-angle curve at the north end is 'out of sight'. Strictly-speaking, LB is actually 14" short of dead-scale length, because I wanted to incorporate the East-West cross-country route as well (of which more later). 

 

 

The too-tight curve at the south end is also 'invisible' as well.

 

I'm thus 'happy' with the visual appearance of the main line at LB, because (in reality) it is a very fast section of main line, with no 'daft' curves whatsoever. 

 

However, when it comes to the MR/M&GNR bit, I must admit to being a hypocrite. I wanted (greed?) to have this fascinating bit of railway (closed now, just over 60 years ago!) operational, but the footprint available was only 12' x 4 1/2". Thus, radii at the ends are down to 2' - a bit tight (a lot too tight!). Not only that, those tight curves would be in view. Like this..............

 

 

Here, a B12/3 (PDK/Wright/Rathbone) takes the 'Leicester' westwards, coming under the bridge carrying the private road to Grimsthorpe Castle at the east end of the site. By having this bridge break the too-tight curve in half, the visual result is better, but not good. Of course, by having much smaller locos and shorter trains, then the 'train set' effect is mitigated, but not nearly enough. Such a curve (even one expanded out by a further foot and more) would look ridiculous on the main line. 

 

 

The effect at the west end is the same. The actual bridge (now destroyed) is really eight miles away (talk about being a hypocrite!). 

 

The irony is, had I just made the MR/M&GNR bit merely a static, scenic break (and, thus, represented it far more accurately), the main line bit of LB would have been virtually dead-scale. However, visitors seem to think it's better to have a working, much smaller railway as well. 

 

What am I getting at, and how will I 'offend'? Putting it bluntly, if one doesn't have the available space to model a main line 'accurately', then set one's sights a lot lower. Trying to cram too much in results in weak appearance and compromised running. Granted, none of us have enough space, but modelling a prototype main line 'accurately' can be done. But, only if the space is available. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Tony Wright

[APOLLO]

Another very interesting and busy ECML location that would make a superb layout would be between Gas Works and Copenhagen tunnels just out of Kings Cross  - All the passenger movements, main line & suburban plus lots of light engine moves to & from Top Shed requiring reversal on the layout. Freight also, both to Kings Cross Goods and cross london freights hauled by small tank locos. The North London line crosses the lot on a grand bridge. Has anyone done this in OO / late 50's / early 60's ?

 

What length (in OO) would be required between tunnel faces ?

 

 

I am aware of the superb N scale Copenhagen fields layout, LNER days I think.

 

Brit15

 

 

[PaulCheffus]

On 06/03/2019 at 07:22, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Jesse,

 

Firstly, my heartiest congratulations on using 'sitting' instead of 'sat' in your first sentence. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to correct that in my proof reading of others' writing. 

 

Of course, I wish to answer your question.

 

My Antex temperature-controlled iron (I have two) is a 660TC, 50Watt. Its temperature range is from 75 degrees to 425 degrees. The first one was bought for me as a 50th birthday present from Mo. I used it constantly for over a decade, then the iron itself failed. I contacted Antex (laying it on thick that it had featured in the Right Track DVD series) and, lo and behold, not only did they send me FOC a complete new unit, but also a replacement iron! 

 

The problem is, my sort of iron is no longer made by Antex. In fact, the firm now makes two. A 'low temperature' type and a 'high temperature type', neither of which will do all your constructional soldering. The 'low' type won't be hot enough for hard metal in any large size, and the 'high' type will be too hot for anything other than the largest castings. Neither are cheap (nor should they be, being of excellent quality). 

 

I have a third TCI. This is a XYTRONIC LF-389D, made in Taiwan. Its range is from 150 degrees to 480 degrees, and it's 60Watts. In fact, it's the one I use the most now for my building (though beware, because acid flux 'rots' the lead to the iron). One of the Antex TCIs goes with me to shows and the other is used exclusively on LB. 

 

The chap to ask about the best TCIs is Phil Atkinson of Hobby Holidays. He does a very wide range, all excellent.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hi

 

I have this Antex iron which I believe replaced the 660TC. 

https://cpc.farnell.com/antex/690d/soldering-station-digital/dp/SD01910?st=soldering

 

Mine won't go below 180C and the new ones only mention a temperature range of 200C to 450C. I have successfully soldered very small whitemetal castings (2mm scale axle boxes and link hangers) at 180C without any issues

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[Mallard60022]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Another very interesting and busy ECML location that would make a superb layout would be between Gas Works and Copenhagen tunnels just out of Kings Cross  - All the passenger movements, main line & suburban plus lots of light engine moves to & from Top Shed requiring reversal on the layout. Freight also, both to Kings Cross Goods and cross london freights hauled by small tank locos. The North London line crosses the lot on a grand bridge. Has anyone done this in OO / late 50's / early 60's ?

 

What length (in OO) would be required between tunnel faces ?

 

 

I am aware of the superb N scale Copenhagen fields layout, LNER days I think.

 

Brit15

 

 

+ Lavender Hill mob cameo?   What a great picture.

Phil

[James Fitzjames]

Tony,

 

Thank you very much for applying your impressive ‘squiggle’ to my copy of your superb Modelling the East Coast Main Line at the Glasgow show, and for your sage advice regarding my K1/1 quandary.

 

Jamie

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

You might very well think that, but actually I've found it extraordinarily difficult to design a satisfactory track plan with "typical" GC-style features (and with a station) that will fit into anything smaller than a standard garage (which is the kind of space I don't have available, only a respectable-sized spare bedroom).  Something to do with the way the island platform pushes-out all the pointwork for crossovers and passing loops to the very extremities of the available space (not to mention access to a goods yard), leaving you, at best, only able to have train-set curves and train-set length trains.  Taking the points "round the corner" doesn't look quite right either.  And modelling an actual track plan of a real station, as so often advocated, seems barely feasible in anything significantly less than a Tony-style big shed.

 

The GC's London Extension trains may have been just about the right size to model with 'fewer compromises', but I don't think that applies to the stations!

I think the problem arises not necessarily because of the MS&L/GC 'standard London Extension track layout' (although it is undoubtedly worse) but with any layout incorporating a respectable length of station platform.  To my mind, thinking also of Tony's words about the proportions of such things, you cannot produce a realistic looking station platform unless a 'normal' stopping train looks lost in it the length of the platform.  

 

Fortunately on some routes stations tended to be short which makes it less of a problem creating a 'typical length' platform but whatever you model for a wayside station you still usually have to fit in a goods yard/other sidings and come what may the point work connecting to them has to be clear of the platforms.  I found it quite difficult to plan what I wanted yard wise (not much as it happens)  into a garage length layout and have platforms in which a local stopping train would at least give a bit of an impression of looking lost.   And, as you've said, you're looking at the length of a normal garage if you want to do that and avoid trainset curves in the scenic area of the layout.  

 

I think the ideal answer has already been identified by Andrew ('Headstock') - don't have a station.  And that might well be the only answer if you don't have the length available to build your layout.

[queensquare]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Another very interesting and busy ECML location that would make a superb layout would be between Gas Works and Copenhagen tunnels just out of Kings Cross  - All the passenger movements, main line & suburban plus lots of light engine moves to & from Top Shed requiring reversal on the layout. Freight also, both to Kings Cross Goods and cross london freights hauled by small tank locos. The North London line crosses the lot on a grand bridge. Has anyone done this in OO / late 50's / early 60's ?

 

What length (in OO) would be required between tunnel faces ?

 

 

I am aware of the superb N scale Copenhagen fields layout, LNER days I think.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

Just a small, but important point, it's 2FS, not N

 

jerry

[APOLLO]

This area was of course the location of the wonderful film "The Ladykillers" (Lavender Hill Mob actors). Both films are favourites of mine.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ladykillers-Lavender-Hill-Mob/dp/B000Q79M2O

 

Some superb atmospheric photos of the film locations including Belle Isle here. Click on the modern views to see what we have lost.

 

https://www.reelstreets.com/films/ladykillers-the/

 

What a layout this would make - how do you model this type of (smokey) atmosphere ? (answer - you can't !!).

 

Brit15

 

 

[t-b-g]

23 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

You might very well think that, but actually I've found it extraordinarily difficult to design a satisfactory track plan with "typical" GC-style features (and with a station) that will fit into anything smaller than a standard garage (which is the kind of space I don't have available, only a respectable-sized spare bedroom).  Something to do with the way the island platform pushes-out all the pointwork for crossovers and passing loops to the very extremities of the available space (not to mention access to a goods yard), leaving you, at best, only able to have train-set curves and train-set length trains.  Taking the points "round the corner" doesn't look quite right either.  And modelling an actual track plan of a real station, as so often advocated, seems barely feasible in anything significantly less than a Tony-style big shed.

 

The GC's London Extension trains may have been just about the right size to model with 'fewer compromises', but I don't think that applies to the stations!

 

If you want a model of a small GCR station that can be represented in a reasonable space, there are many. Just not on the branch line to London.

 

If you look further North, along and around the main line, which ran East to West across Woodhead, there are many variations in style, landscape and traffic. There are also minor lines like the North Lindsey Light railway and the LD&ECR, which were worked by the GCR (the LD&ECR after 1907). One of the stations at say Whitton or Winteringham on the NLLR would make a very attractive small model, although the operation would be limited.

 

Sadly, in my view, many GCR modellers see the lines as the London Extension plus a few other bits "up north", when in reality, the bits "up north" have much interest, variety and modelling appeal.

 

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Another very interesting and busy ECML location that would make a superb layout would be between Gas Works and Copenhagen tunnels just out of Kings Cross  - All the passenger movements, main line & suburban plus lots of light engine moves to & from Top Shed requiring reversal on the layout. Freight also, both to Kings Cross Goods and cross london freights hauled by small tank locos. The North London line crosses the lot on a grand bridge. Has anyone done this in OO / late 50's / early 60's ?

 

What length (in OO) would be required between tunnel faces ?

 

 

I am aware of the superb N scale Copenhagen fields layout, LNER days I think.

 

Brit15

 

 

Hi Apollo

 

Many years ago I proposed this a club layout, and from memory it is about 16 ft from Gasworks Tunnel to Belle Isle.

[westerner]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think the problem arises not necessarily because of the MS&L/GC 'standard London Extension track layout' (although it is undoubtedly worse) but with any layout incorporating a respectable length of station platform.  To my mind, thinking also of Tony's words about the proportions of such things, you cannot produce a realistic looking station platform unless a 'normal' stopping train looks lost in it the length of the platform.  

 

Fortunately on some routes stations tended to be short which makes it less of a problem creating a 'typical length' platform but whatever you model for a wayside station you still usually have to fit in a goods yard/other sidings and come what may the point work connecting to them has to be clear of the platforms.  I found it quite difficult to plan what I wanted yard wise (not much as it happens)  into a garage length layout and have platforms in which a local stopping train would at least give a bit of an impression of looking lost.   And, as you've said, you're looking at the length of a normal garage if you want to do that and avoid trainset curves in the scenic area of the layout.  

 

I think the ideal answer has already been identified by Andrew ('Headstock') - don't have a station.  And that might well be the only answer if you don't have the length available to build your layout.

 

or go the Iain Rice way and just model the veg ends of the platforms, he calls it "bitsa  station".

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Apollo

 

Many years ago I proposed this a club layout, and from memory it is about 16 ft from Gasworks Tunnel to Belle Isle.

I'm sure the MRC's rendition of Belle Isle is very close to dead scale, so, perhaps, Tim will tell us what it is in 2mm FS and we can double it for 4mm. 

 

I seem to recall over 20' would be the scale distance between the tunnels in 4mm, but I could be wrong. 

 

At 16' between the tunnels (in 4mm) that would be able to be modelled 'easily' in the same 'footprint' as LB, except that's only linear. The width would be the restricting point, especially if all the roads leading off to Kings Cross Goods Yard and Top Shed were to be incorporated. Not only that, think of the vast fiddle yard which would be necessary. Vast, even if only a fraction of the trains were to be represented. Bytham's yard(s) can accommodate 40 trains - three times as many as that would be necessary, and then some more for Belle Isle. 

 

Just out of interest, in the marvellous picture which was first posted, though I'm not able to identify the A1-hauled express heading north, the A4 stopped at the signals is on the Up Talisman; note the ex-Coronation' articulated FOs. 

[EHertsGER]

Tony et al

 

In the interests of an 'economical' project on which to 'run trains' I have often contemplated Highgate High Level (N. London). Its form is that of a deep cutting with tunnels at each end (no silly sharp curves visible), no points or sidings (easy track laying) and operations at both local (Alexandra Palace branch) and main line (relief running from Finsbury Park). A good place to get going if you space and ambition also lend themselves to a later addition of the Alexandra Palace branch and the sidings at the other end of the northern tunnel - then you get really ambitious and build the low-level link into the underground...

 

A 'pipe dream', of course.

 

Best,

Marcus

[Clive Mortimore]

17 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm sure the MRC's rendition of Belle Isle is very close to dead scale, so, perhaps, Tim will tell us what it is in 2mm FS and we can double it for 4mm. 

 

I seem to recall over 20' would be the scale distance between the tunnels in 4mm, but I could be wrong. 

 

At 16' between the tunnels (in 4mm) that would be able to be modelled 'easily' in the same 'footprint' as LB, except that's only linear. The width would be the restricting point, especially if all the roads leading off to Kings Cross Goods Yard and Top Shed were to be incorporated. Not only that, think of the vast fiddle yard which would be necessary. Vast, even if only a fraction of the trains were to be represented. Bytham's yard(s) can accommodate 40 trains - three times as many as that would be necessary, and then some more for Belle Isle. 

 

Just out of interest, in the marvellous picture which was first posted, though I'm not able to identify the A1-hauled express heading north, the A4 stopped at the signals is on the Up Talisman; note the ex-Coronation' articulated FOs. 

Hello Tony

 

I agree the width would be a major consideration should someone take this on as a project.  Thankfully  York Way bridge would form an ideal back drop. The ex NLR line crossing would possibly have to be nonoperative in 4mm. The yards and shed behind the bridge would have to double up as the freight fiddle yard. To represent the traffic passing there would have to extensive fiddle yards and for an exhibition layout it possibly mean more hidden track than can be viewed . Something I dislike. I also think it wouldn't be used to its full potential, how often would the down mainline operators give way to allow a loco to come off shed and drop down into the Cross. Another concern is that it is in a cutting and the view of the trains would be their roofs.

 

As for locations with a tunnel each end, Bangor. Again width would be a problem if the shed and yard were to be incorporated. 

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony

 

I have the relevant Ordnance Survey maps. The distance between the two tunnels is 1170ft (give or take).

 

Brian

[Chamby]

*snip*

Edited March 7, 2019 by Chamby
Duplicate post... managed to link to another thread, see below.

[Richard_A]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think the problem arises not necessarily because of the MS&L/GC 'standard London Extension track layout' (although it is undoubtedly worse) but with any layout incorporating a respectable length of station platform.  To my mind, thinking also of Tony's words about the proportions of such things, you cannot produce a realistic looking station platform unless a 'normal' stopping train looks lost in it the length of the platform.  

 

Fortunately on some routes stations tended to be short which makes it less of a problem creating a 'typical length' platform but whatever you model for a wayside station you still usually have to fit in a goods yard/other sidings and come what may the point work connecting to them has to be clear of the platforms.  I found it quite difficult to plan what I wanted yard wise (not much as it happens)  into a garage length layout and have platforms in which a local stopping train would at least give a bit of an impression of looking lost.   And, as you've said, you're looking at the length of a normal garage if you want to do that and avoid trainset curves in the scenic area of the layout.  

 

I think the ideal answer has already been identified by Andrew ('Headstock') - don't have a station.  And that might well be the only answer if you don't have the length available to build your layout.

I keep looking at cockett station on the line out of Swansea, a tunnel short station and a road over bridge, I'd imagine it'd be boring in the diesel era but possibly interesting based in in the steam era.

[Chamby]

On 08/08/2014 at 14:45, DaveF said:

I don't know if any of these from my flickr albums are any use.  All the photos were taken by my Dad.

 

Carrington A5 69877 up le c1953JVol3041

 

 

Carrington A5 up pass c1951 JVol7048

 

Carrington B1 61188 pass Leicester Central to Sheffield Victoria May 54 JVol7021

 

 

:Carrington B1 61315 Manchester to Marylebone c1953 JVol3023

 

 

Carrington N1 up pass Pinxton to Nottingham Victoria c1953 JVol3040

 

 

Carrington O1 63630 up le and brake c1953 JVol3024

 

 

Carrington O1 63886 down goods c1951 JVol4029

 

David

 

 

 

Carrington station on the GCLE just north of Nottingham Victoria: it’s cutting was just 154 yards long between the Tunnels!   Not a location for viewing long expresses at their best, but at a little over 6 foot long in 4mm,  it would be a manageable prototype to model without compression!

 

Phil.

 

Edit:   to clarify, the photographs were originally posted by DaveF of this Parish, in a different thread.  Credit should go where it is due.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Chamby